Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court revisited a long-standing service dispute arising out of a 2010 recruitment process for Punjabi Teachers, reiterating settled principles on reservation claims and eligibility under recruitment rules.
The case arose from a challenge to the appointment of a Punjabi Teacher made in October 2010. The Petitioner, who was working as a Punjabi Teacher under the PTA system, claimed that one of the six advertised posts was reserved for the OBC category and that she was wrongly denied selection against that reserved vacancy. She sought quashing of the appointment of the selected candidate and claimed entitlement to appointment with consequential benefits.
The Petitioner argued that she belonged to the OBC category and was therefore entitled to be considered against the reserved post. She further contended that the selected candidate was ineligible as he allegedly did not possess an M.A. degree in Punjabi, which, according to her, was an essential qualification under the advertisement. It was also argued that she had secured higher marks than some candidates selected under the general category and was therefore unfairly excluded.
The State authorities countered that although one post was reserved for OBC candidates, the petitioner had never applied under the OBC category nor submitted the requisite certificate along with her application, as mandated by the recruitment notice. They further asserted that the selected candidate fulfilled the eligibility criteria under the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules, which prescribed alternative qualifications and did not mandate an M.A. degree alone.
The High Court observed that a mere belonging to a reserved category does not automatically confer a right to appointment against a reserved post. Such a right crystallises only when a candidate consciously opts for and applies under the reserved category in accordance with the recruitment notice. The Court noted that the Petitioner neither applied as an OBC candidate nor possessed a valid OBC certificate at the time of advertisement. On the issue of qualifications, the Court clarified that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules prevailed over any ambiguity in the advertisement and that the selected candidate possessed one of the prescribed alternative qualifications, rendering him eligible. The Court also declined to entertain challenges to general category selections after a lapse of over fifteen years, citing delay and laches.
Finding no illegality in the selection process or the appointment under challenge, the High Court dismissed the Petition, upholding the appointment made in 2010 and declining to interfere after the passage of considerable time.
Case Title: Baljinder Kaur v/s State of H.P. and others
Case No.: CWPOA No. 1968 of 2019
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Ranjan Sharma
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Raman Jamalta,
Counsel for the Respondent: Deputy Advocate General Sumit Sharma, Adv Surender Sharma
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
